Network News

Get the Morning Fix and the new Afternoon Fix delivered to your inbox or mobile device for easy access to the top political stories of the day. All you need is one click to get Morning Fix and Afternoon Fix!

Incumbents Beware!

Amid the spin spewing from the two parties over what last Tuesday's elections meant, there is one indisputable lesson learned: voters don't like incumbents of either party these days.

In New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine was hoisted on his petard by Garden State voters while New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) narrowly escaped defeat despite outspending his opponent at a 20 to one clip.

Just more than 50 percent of those tested said they would like to see their member re-elected next fall while just 34 percent said they would like to see most incumbents re-elected in the midterms. (Voters are consistently more willing in polling to give their incumbent the benefit of the doubt even when they are sour on Congress generally.)

Those numbers, which Pew describes as among the most "negative" in two decades of its data, approach levels found in the run-up to the 2006 and 1994 midterms, elections that saw significant seat changes in the House and Senate. In October 2006, 55 percent said they wanted to see their Member re-elected and 37 percent favored the re-election of most members; in October 1994, 49 percent favored the re-election of their congressman/woman and 29 percent backed the general re-election of incumbents.

Even more troubling for incumbents is that unaligned/independent voters are more down on their elected officials than partisans of either stripe. Only one-quarter of independents want to see incumbents re-elected next year while just more than four in ten (42 percent) would commit to backing their own incumbent in the 2010 midterms.

What's clear from this and other national polling as well as a variety of state data -- including today's Ohio Quinnipiac survey -- is that there is a widespread belief that politicians are not acting in the best interests of those they represent.

This sentiment isn't terribly new but the depth of these anti-incumbent feelings -- particularly among political independents -- makes it particularly newsworthy.

While it's likely any sustained sentiment of this sort will hurt Democrats more than Republicans simply because the former has more incumbents than the latter and is seen as controlling all of the levers of power in Washington, this sort of political environment is decidedly unpredictable and could lead to a series of surprising defeats for presumed safe incumbents -- of both parties -- next November.

The innocent Muslims of this country are protected by this Constitution, a trial in war time with a declared enemy is not a test of the Constitution, but an assault.
The is Washington Elite go to a coffee shop to discuss what the poor need and how they can make their lives better.
Beyond the beltway, folks want bureaucrats not legacy.
How about, do your job and go home.

Cicero predicted the fall of the Roman Republic.
'Let Them Eat Cake' is a Washington that does not report to the people, with a wealthy Congress that is insulated by 'special status'.
'Give a Circus to the Masses' is a perpetual war, and distraction which can be a 1,050 page bill to absorb 1/6th of the economy with more hidden pork that no one knows who wrote it, the Congress paid to vote on it don't know what is in it and this is an 'emergency'.
For that reason alone it should be thrown away.
The O.J. slow speed caravan will soon be approaching lower Manhattan.
NY23 means 'Send them All Home'.

Yeah they're SO MUCH BETTER when they restrict their activities to getting us into unncessary wars and finding ways to ship jobs to India.

-----------------------------------------
BO is still in Iraq and Afghanistan. Jobs are still going to India and he hasn't stop waves of Indians coming here taking jobs while on a visa. Something he was going to look into and do something about but indecision set in.

Here is an idea to control the House of Representatives. You have to win the combined vote of two districts. On August 1st of every election year you randomly select one Congressional district from anywhere in the US. To win the election you have to win both your home district and this randomly selected one. So does your opponent. And your campaign communications cannot be tailored, they have to be the same for both districts.

Some would say that it would make campaigning more expensive and favor the incumbent. I say that having to defend your record to a district that could be wildly different from your own would bring a certain saneness to Congress. And in throw the bums out years it would bring real change to Washington.

I will never understand republicans. We have had 8 long years of lies, deceptions and crass stupidity. All of the so called "values" of the republicans have gone down in flames. De Lay is under indictment, foley is out somewhere enticing teen age boys to his bed, craig is probably still slinking into public restrooms looking for a quickie, Stevens in Alaska (home of the great philosopher Palin) and so on. Now that we are in the toilet as a result of Bush and his stupidity, we are all moaning because Obama cant resolve everything in a day or two? Wake up cretins!

The fact that Obama thinks the way to solve the jobs problem is to have a "seminar" is beyond laughable. It's disgusting. "The anointed one" doesn't have a clue. That's the reason Americans from all stripes are rising up and will throw out hundreds of Democrats across the country (in towns, districts and states) in next year's mid-term. Obama will go down to humiliating defeat in 2012 when this nightmare will finally end.

Here’s a little secret. Anyone elected that isn’t a neocom statist will be an improvement to the current situation. Even if they just sit in Washington or their state capitals playing video games. We don’t need politicians spending and making new laws, taxes, and fees 24/7/365. They do WAY LESS damage just doing nothing.

N.O.I.S.E. NOW-NOT ONE INCUMBENT STAYS ELECTED. We are dedicated to the principal of the citizen statesmen. An individual who is elected and serves 1-2 terms, then returns home to their "real" occupation. We must remove the professional leeches, barnacles and criminals that currently reside in the house & the senate. Fall house (& senate)cleaning begins in 2010. Check us out on Facebook groups.

==

So just as a representative acquires some skill in office you want to replace him with a novice.

I bet you think "they're all crooks" is the very pinnacle of sagacity.

N.O.I.S.E. NOW-NOT ONE INCUMBENT STAYS ELECTED. We are dedicated to the principal of the citizen statesmen. An individual who is elected and serves 1-2 terms, then returns home to their "real" occupation. We must remove the professional leeches, barnacles and criminals that currently reside in the house & the senate. Fall house (& senate)cleaning begins in 2010. Check us out on Facebook groups.

Looks great for Republicans in 2012. So many house seats are for the taking! In the Senate I forsee competitive seats in alot of states that I would normally consider safe. Democratic competitive seats: Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York-2 (Gillbrand is in trouble) Shumer is very safe, Arkansas, Colorodo, Nevada, Wisconsin, Connecticut, California, Delaware & North Dakota. All of these races have the potential to be extremely competitive and possible Republican takeovers. In Illinois, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Colorodo, Nevada, California, Connecticut & Delaware great candidates are already in the races & competing to win. In North Dakota, Wisconsin & New York candidates are being recruited, but must join the races in order for Republicans to have a real shot at winning. In Wisconsin, it depends on former Gov. Tommy Thompson or US Rep. Ryan. 1 of them must join the race for Republicans to be competitive & have a real shot to win. In New York, former 3 term Governor Pataki or former NYC Mayor & Atty. General Guiliani must join in order to win. In North Dakota, chances pend on whether Gov. John Hoeven joins the race or not, which may depend on Dorgan's vote on healthcare. Good year for Republicans.

There are two segments of voters who are mad at incumbents. One segment doesn't pay much attention to politics or government. They voted against Clinton and for Bush in a fit of pique and are now snapping at Democrats who have been in office for 1 to 3 years trying to fix everything Bush effed-up. There is no helping these people. They stampede from thing to thing without thinking. Unhappily, this group of panicking nit-wits sometimes calls an election.

That other sgement? They know why we are where we are and why we as a country are struggling on so many fronts. They know this situation and this struggle was created by the Republicans who ran this country into the ground for 8 long years. If the President appears to be struggling, he is. He is trying to pull an entire nation out of a mess made by Bush and his party.

Excellent list, DĐAWD, outstannin'. The perfect retort anytime one of Them tries to pull that military sanctimony crap.

Had an interesting one at the gym .. this guy was going from victim to victim and talking about ten minutes apiece of canned lies about healthcare. I awaited my time and cornered him in the jacuzzi and ripped him a new one. He was trying all the dodges .. allusions to layoffs due to "new taxes" and of course the illegal aliens red herring (can't bring myself to write "canard"), and how "they" want to change the law to cover them. I was not kind.

After I left I could hear him going right back to square one. Whaddizzit with these people ...

Why did Doug Hoffman fade at end? He was a media creation, the political equivalent of cheetos or laundry soap. Most of his money came from outside the district. His campaign was dead in the water until the Club of Growth came along. Outside money and big names party and talking heads were his pitchmen. In the end, voters realized there wasn't a lot of substance there and there was also a backlash against outsiders telling district voters what to think and to do. The real narrative here was local vs. outsiders, not establishment vs. grassroots rebellion.

I agree it was a pity about Dobbs. But he let himself fall victim to Foxification and demograhics -- thinking that the kind of hateful, bigoted rhetoric that appeals to the mostly old and white audience of Fox will appeal similarly to the entirely different audience which CNN has -- far more diverse and ethnic and representative of America today.

Tough nuts, baby, you gambled and you lost. Go out a buy yourself a bag of DrudgeNuts [TM] instead of your usual Cheetos to console yourself.

"Wednesday evening, the advocacy group Presente.org, which had called on CNN to fire Mr. Dobbs, declared a “victory.”

“Our contention all along was that Lou Dobbs — who has a long record of spreading lies and conspiracy theories about immigrants and Latinos — does not belong on the ‘most trusted name in news,’” Roberto Lovato, a co-founder of Presente.org, said in a statement. “We are thrilled that Dobbs no longer has this legitimate platform from which to incite fear and hate.”"

They have to work so hard convincing themselves that the majority of Americans who voted for Obama aren't American. I think the chronic cognitive dissonance makes their heads hurt. That's why they're such a cranky lot.

==

That's why they scream about ACORN, of course, they need to believe that some cartoonishly monstrous voter fraud got Obama into office and that at heart the majority of Americans outside NYC and SF are as bigoted as they are.

They have to work so hard convincing themselves that the majority of Americans who voted for Obama aren't American. I think the chronic cognitive dissonance makes their heads hurt. That's why they're such a cranky lot.

Many many years ago before "Moneyline" back when Sandi Freeman had her great interview show, contact was lost to her show ten minutes in. After a few commercials Dobbs came on obviously out of breath running to his chair, and after a hesitant statement that the show would resume as soon as, he continued ".. and in the meantime, here are the latest headlines" and launched right into it.

TOTAL pro.

I wish he had stayed there instead of turning into a birther / racist disgrace. I would rather remember him as the guy who was so very cool under fire.

Just checked in on Dobbs. He's way off his game tonight. Stumbling and bumbling his lines. Don't know the circumstances of his departure but we hope CNN simply decided to do the right thing. Hopefully they decided CNN should not be a forum for open bigotry.

"Times reporter Brian Stelter tweeted on Wednesday evening, "NYT learns that Lou Dobbs' resignation is effective immediately; tonight’s program will be his last on CNN." Another message sent shortly afterwards: "A Fox spokesperson tells the NYT, 'We have not had any discussions with Lou Dobbs for Fox News or Fox Business.'""

Dartagnon is trying to displace the third stooge with prolific idiocy. But really ignorant one liners is Loud and dumbs specialty, rivaling no one. you will have to get stupider than that. Like CF8 stupid. or raving barking mad drivl stupid. you are still simply a stooge wanna be.

And those who call themselves "conservatives" are now the ones who spit on the troops. Denying funding for armor and materiel to budget tax cuts for the ridiculously rich. Not that any of them would ever put on the uniform .. other priorities, don'cha know.

More silliness. REPUBLICAN INCUMBENTS are who is danger, CC. Try to come to terms with that. There is no hard left insurgency--but there sure is a hard right one. Who came to the tea parties enraged with 'government' and incumbents? It wasn't Democrats, my friend.

Many Democrats may not be happy with the pace of things, but try and find some who want to 'shake up' the establishment, send a message and risk getting Republicans elected?

The USA has become financialized, and no nation has ever recovered from that.
__________________________________

Right now, (as we post!) massive fortunes are being bet over this prospect. Those bets are also being hedged. This is how the equity markets (betting US companies do well) can soar at the same time gold prices soar. The dollar has so much short money bet on it, we see perverse results. No one says they have confidence in the dollar and yet, it won't crash. Hmmm. If I had play money, I'd bet Goldmine Stacks.

But unless America reinvents itself, well, history is pretty relentless.

Nations like India are buying tons of gold, trust in the US dollar is declining. Couple this with humongous debt, and a ferocious wave of taxes and fees. The incumbents are retained only in the fantasy world and economics of today’s NeoCom Statist Destructionist Party.

I want to give a shout out to my friends in the back who worked on my campaign and raised me lots of money. then I wish to plug my efforts for health care reform. I may have done this hundreds of times before but this time I really mean it. now about social justice and income redistribution.........

20 minutes later....

But the real reason I'm here is to say I'm sorry that that Muslim dude killed all these people. bummer Man. don't jump to any conclusions. He was a victim too.

No, bringing up throw the bums out sentiment in the teeth of a recession is trite. Would you consider reporting on anger coming from people whose unemployment benefits are running out original analysis?

He knows better, so he covers by saying,

"This sentiment isn't terribly new but the depth of these anti-incumbent feelings -- particularly among political independents -- makes it particularly newsworthy."

Now if we learned of numbers or other evidence to prove this point, that the current anti-incumbency sentiment is extraordinary relative to certain benchmarks, unexpected in some way, then, not trite.

I don't think the anti-incumbent meme is trite. Ever since the market crashed, you've seen the approval ratings of governors plummet. Both Dems and Repubs. When people are losing jobs, they blame whoever is in charge. That was the case for Bush (both of them!), it will be the case for Obama, it is the case for governors of hard hit states.

Since the incumbent beware meme mention is trite and even worse, ill timed...here is something nonaligned.

Evidently Goldmine Sachs bankers are non-partisan friends of the White House. But no one is forcing them to be parasites. They could switch from being ticks to worms.

If they spent all their "bonus" money locally, right away, we could think of their effort as casting, fertilizing the economy. Bloomberg's campaign for example, was a shot in the arm for strung out NY graphic artists and ad workers in general.

I like the idea of Warren Buffet investing $ in Bs in a railway. But what the heck is wrong with the banking class? Is it just greed? Seriously, can they be this awful?

While Conservative party nominee Doug Hoffman's candidacy ultimately fell short in the special election in New York's 23rd district, his rapid rise was based almost entirely on an anti-Washington, throw-the-bums-out messaging.

==

A few million dollars from the Club for Growth and lotta hoopla from the Palinite wing of the GOP kinda screamed a lot louder than any generic "throw out the bums" sentiment.

You really should give it more than a week before cranking up the revisionism. Some of us can remember back that far.

I don't think it's fair to consider Deeds as effectively an incumbent. My guess is that Kaine would have cleaned McDonnell's clock, but we'll never know. It's more accurate to state that the incumbent party has fared poorly. Including the CA race, 4 out of 5 lost. So, the spirit is right, just not the wording.

"Even in Virginia, an open seat, voters roundly rejected the party of President Barack Obama and outgoing Governor and Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine."

Going rogue here???

The WashPo editorial on the race attributed the Mac win to his good campaign and moderate stances, NOT rejection of BHO and his party (see below).
_____________

"Wednesday, November 4, 2009

ROBERT F. MCDONNELL'S crushing victory in Virginia's gubernatorial election Tuesday testified to his skills as a politician and to his disciplined, focused and generally positive, issues-based campaign. Mr. McDonnell, the Republican former state attorney general, rose above the toxic partisanship that suffuses electoral politics to conduct himself with civility, dignity and an even temper. Those qualities will be welcome, and politically useful, as he takes office in January as Virginia's 71st governor, and the first Republican to hold the job since 2002.

Mr. McDonnell read the electorate's independent and swing voters correctly by playing down divisive social issues, such as abortion, that had occupied much of his attention during his earlier years as a legislator, and by broadening his appeal to women, minorities and others not always effectively courted by the GOP.""

The Fix writes
"While it's likely any sustained sentiment of this sort will hurt Democrats more than Republicans simply because the former has more incumbents than the latter and is seen as controlling all of the levers of power in Washington, this sort of political environment is decidedly unpredictable and could lead to a series of surprising defeats for presumed safe incumbents -- of both parties -- next November."

Half true. I do think the Dems in particular should take the message that they are not delivering on the expectations set by the 2008 election. However, The Fix overlooks that while the Dems control the Senate, the class up for election this year was last elected when the Repubs were in power - and has more Repub incumbents (18) than Dems (16). I suppose if you toss out the Repub retirements, the Dems have more incuments at risk in the Senate, though that analysis alone is a misread on the situation, in my opinion.

CC, of the four races that you discussed only ONE incumbent was defeated. How then do you come to this conclusion "voters don't like incumbents of either party these days"

That is just flat out wrong. If they had voted out Bloomberg, and the NY-23rd elected a conservative candidate, and then NJ elected THE INDEPENDENT candidate Dagget then I might agree with you. But Dagget didn't even break 10% even though he was getting a ton of press and had raised over a million dollars.

I think you are trying to take this limited amount of data and fit it into your argument. That isn't reporting, that is punditry. Stick to what your good at reporting the behind the scenes political news that we all come here for.